Picasso is a phony and Pollock was a drunk as$hole!!!!

I know your just dying for some one to ask.

So go ahead, backup your claim.

Re: Picasso is a phony and Pollock was a drunk as$hole!!!!



I concur

I only like certain periods of Picasso's art myself.

me thinks Picasso would not consider you an Amigo...

Re: Picasso is a phony and Pollock was a drunk as$hole!!!!


Yup.

But they made a few good pictures, though. :wink:

don't be talkin' smack about amigo, or you'll have to answer to the wrath of chai.

i believe i already did... and i further believe that i already am...

I will smote you like guernica.

Actually, Picasso wasn't a phoney, just a misogynist ...

you don't scare moi... but this is just plain creepy:

All that idiot Pollock did was take a bunch of colors that go together anyway and splatter them around.

"Ohhhh, but he was the first."

Who gives a $hit! He was probably the first to splater paint around because he couldn't do anything else.

And that drunk idiot killed that girl.

With few exceptions I personally do not respond to the later works of Pollack, but his earlier stuff was very interesting.
But PICASSO! There was a great genius. But it takes a fairly developed observer to realize the value of Pablo's expressions.

I think we have to separate the artist from the art. How many of us could stand up to the scrutiny that a celebrity gets under a microscope? Not only would most of us get labeled as buttheads, but we haven't created anything either.

I know that the modern Vienna Philharmonic never played Mahler, an Austrian Jew whose music was banned by Hitler, until Bernstein reintroduced him to the orchestra, I believe in the 1960s. And, as far as I know, the Israel Philharmonic has never played Wagner because he was anti-semitic. We can't let personal prejudices get in the way of great art.

He's nekkid. The emperor ain't got no clothes, and it took Amigo to point it out.

Jack The Dripper? I agree with jlnobody about his early work being more interesting, when he was still under the influence of T. Hart Benton. As for the drip paintings-- he was in the right place at the right time and appropriately self-destructive to earn him the label of genius.

Picasso, now he's the bad uncle that no matter how you look at him, you can't deny his contribution to the art world. Did the man himself have any redeeming qualities? Who knows.

Wiki on Pollock, with a list of major paintings - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock
(I need to look at that list..)

and Picasso -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Picasso


Not that Wiki is tha last word, if there is a last word, but a handy place to link.

I can understand how someone might not like Pollack and I can understand how someone might not like Picasso's cubist periods but to not like Picasso?

Have you ever looked at his drawings? Nobody could draw a line like Picasso. They're so simple and elegant. Lovely.

Coluber, it does seem that one cannot logically, at least, evaluate an individual's art on the basis of his character--I'm thinking, of course, of the absurdity of claims that Wagner (because of his racism) or Mahler (because of his ethnic status) could not do good work. As as formula: if we say that a bad man cannot make good art then it follows, logically at least, that a good man cannot make bad art.

Gala, doesn't it seem that Pollack's later work had very little "evolutionary potential"? Where could he go from there?

Here's an untitled 1948 work by Pollock. I like its transparency, thinness, and resemblance to sculpture, perhaps, reminisint of a Calder wire sculpture. He showed more control here than usual with even a semblance of figures.